2021 (8) TMI 717 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax paid - second refund claim filed (refund claim filed again) for claiming the refund from original order - Security Services - Clearing and Forwarding Charges - HELD THAT - Originally refund application was filed on 17.7.2007 which was partially allowed by the Deputy Commissioner to the extent of ₹ 3,85,681/- and thereafter, the Commissioner (A) has allowed refund claim on certain input services viz., Security Services and Clearing and Forwarding Charges . Thereafter, CESTAT vide Final Order No.21260/2016 dated 16.7.2014 received on 25.11.2016 has allowed the appeal and set aside the order rejecting the refund claim. Thereafter, this decision of the Tribunal was not challenged by the Department and it has attained finality. After the decision of the Tribunal, it was incumbent upon the department to refund the CENVAT credit as per the decision of the Tribunal. After three months of the decision of the Tribunal, the appellant filed a letter dated 21.2.2017 requesting the department to grant refund as per the order of CESTAT. The Tribunal s decision dated 16.7.2014 communicated on 25.11.2016 has attained finality, then there is no power or jurisdiction to the lower authority to re-adjudicate the matter again in view of the various decisions cited supra. Further, the department has erroneously relied upon the GST Circular to reject the refund of CENVAT credit and the said Circular is contrary to the provisions of erstwhile Service Tax Regime and are not binding on the Court. Demand of interest for delayed refund - HELD THAT - Since the issue of interest on delayed refund has been settled by the apex court in the case of RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2011 (10) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT wherein Hon ble Supreme Court has held that interest on delayed refund under Section 11BB is payable on expiry of three months from the date of receipt of application under Section 11B(1) and not from the date of the order of refund or appellate order allowing such refund - the appellant is entitled for interest as per the apex court decision in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of refund claim on the grounds of limitation as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Requirement of filing a fresh refund application at each stage of the adjudication process.
3. Entitlement to interest on delayed refund as per Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Refund Claim on Grounds of Limitation:
The appellant's refund claim was initially partially allowed by the Deputy Commissioner and subsequently by the Commissioner (A) for certain input services. The CESTAT later allowed the full refund claim, which was not contested by the Department and thus attained finality. Despite this, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim on the grounds of limitation, arguing it was not filed within one year from the date of receipt of the CESTAT order. The Tribunal found that the original refund application was filed within the statutory period, and there was no need for a subsequent application. The Tribunal referenced the case of BASF India Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore, which held that once a refund claim is filed, there is no need to file another application at each stage of adjudication.

2. Requirement of Filing Fresh Refund Application:
The Tribunal held that the requirement to file a fresh refund application at each stage of the adjudication process is not supported by the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, or Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal cited several cases, including SPIC Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai, and VVF Ltd., which established that a second refund claim need not be filed following a favorable appellate order. The Tribunal emphasized that the relevant date for the refund claim is the date of the original application, not subsequent applications.

3. Entitlement to Interest on Delayed Refund:
The Tribunal addressed the appellant's claim for interest on the delayed refund, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. UOI. The Supreme Court held that interest under Section 11BB becomes payable if the refund is not made within three months from the date of receipt of the original refund application. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to interest on the delayed refund as per this ruling.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appellant's refund claim and entitlement to interest on the delayed refund. The Tribunal reiterated that there is no requirement for filing a fresh refund application at each stage of the adjudication process, and the relevant date for the refund claim is the date of the original application. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in open court on 16/08/2021.